Evidence mapPaperPMID 40650174Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Establishing Best Practices for Clinical GWAS: Tackling Imputation and Data Quality Challenges.

Giorgio Casaburi, Ron McCullough, Valeria D'Argenio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Integrating multi-omics data for next-generation cancer research and precision medicine.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Giorgio CasaburiDepartment of Bioinformatics and Innovation Strategy, SOLVD Health, 1600 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA.
Ron McCulloughDepartment of Clinical Operations, SOLVD Health, 1600 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, USA.
Valeria D'ArgenioDepartment for the Promotion of Human Sciences and Quality of Life, San Raffaele Roma Open University, 00166 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9273-3698

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) play a central role in precision medicine, powering a range of clinical applications from pharmacogenomics to disease risk prediction. A critical component of GWASs is genotype imputation, a computational method used to infer untyped genetic variants. While imputation increases variant coverage by estimating genotypes at untyped loci, this expanded coverage can enhance the ability to detect genetic associations in some cases. However, imputation also introduces biases, particularly for rare variants and underrepresented populations, which may compromise clinical accuracy. This review examines the challenges and clinical implications of genotype imputation errors, including their impact on therapeutic decisions and predictive models, like polygenic risk scores (PRSs). In particular, the sources of imputation errors have been deeply explored, emphasizing the disparities in performance across ancestral populations and downstream effects on healthcare equity and addressing ethical considerations surrounding the access to equitable genomic resources. Based on the above, we propose evidence-based best practices for clinical GWAS implementation, including the direct genotyping of clinically actionable variants, the cross-population validation of imputation models, the transparent reporting of imputation quality metrics, and the use of ancestry-matched reference panels. As genomic data becomes increasingly adopted in healthcare systems worldwide, ensuring the accuracy and inclusivity of GWAS-derived insights is paramount. Here, we suggest a framework for the responsible clinical integration of imputed genetic data, paving the way for more reliable and equitable personalized medicine.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyGenome-Wide Association StudyGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenotypeHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrecision Medicinegenome-wide association studies (GWASs)genotype imputationmolecular diagnosticsprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID40650174
PMCPMC12250051

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.